Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[CynicalScouter]

32 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

There are many times more stories such as yours for every victim.

And so therefore the victims should get nothing? That's the math sheet here? It's ok to abuse 82,500 scouts, so long as 825,000 or 8,250,000 are served?

Sorry you got abused but the BSA has got to keep those campfires glowing.

[vol_scouter]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

And so therefore the victims should get nothing? That's the math sheet here? It's ok to abuse 82,500 scouts, so long as 825,000 or 8,250,000 are served?

Sorry you got abused but the BSA has got to keep those campfires glowing.

@CynicalScouter  If this was not a Scout forum I would be saying very un-Courteous and un-Kind things to you.  Anytime someone defends the BSA you take it to you do not want to compensate them at all or you wish to deny them of council.  Quit making up garbage!  

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

And so therefore the victims should get nothing? That's the math sheet here? It's ok to abuse 82,500 scouts, so long as 825,000 or 8,250,000 are served?

Sorry you got abused but the BSA has got to keep those campfires glowing.

@CynicalScouter  If this was not a Scout forum I would be saying very un-Courteous and un-Kind things to you.  Anytime someone defends the BSA you take it to you do not want to compensate them at all or you wish to deny them of council.  Quit making up garbage!  

This is the sword play I was referring to, CS. I don’t think it’s benefiting the people you are defending or concerned about here. I have to agree it seems to have gotten emotional and reactionary, missing the forest for the trees. You seem to have a hair trigger lately and I don’t think it’s representative of your intellect and ability to remain balanced in the discourse. This is my thinking, anyway.

Edited October 8, 2021 by ThenNow

[HelpfulTracks]

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

You haven’t bothered to study the history. This was a civil conspiracy to conceal the sexual abuse of children that continued for a century.  It was child endangerment on an epic scale. The pedophiles are the wild beasts with uncontrollable obsessions. What generations of executives did in keeping it secret from scouts and the public is indefensible. 

You are free to your opinion.

You are free to disagree with me.

But please do not assume you know what I have and have not studied. 

[SiouxRanger]

I am sometimes reminded, when reading posts, of the Pogo panels by Walt Kelly:  "We have met the enemy and he is us."

[PeterHopkins]

4 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I gag at blood pudding and I was born in the UK LOL

I love blood pudding. I was born in Brooklyn and am a dual citizen of the United States and Ireland.

[SiouxRanger]

36 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

I love blood pudding. I was born in Brooklyn and am a dual citizen of the United States and Ireland.

Sorry-mon (mes?), apologies!

(Just too easy.)

 

 

I LOVE blood pudding!

 

As long as it is somebody's else's blood.

 

 

(What is "blood pudding?")

 

Can I get it from Mountain House, freeze-dried?

 

[PeterHopkins]

Fairness.

The post that started this discussion asked whether the LC contributions were fair.

There's real fair, and then there's bankruptcy court fair.

I haven't seen anyone here express an opinion that real fair is achievable.

Bankruptcy court fair is a different thing. The court is about money and nothing else. It is cold and emotionless. In a Chapter 11 case, provided the debtor can demonstrate its viability, the court will protect the debtor's right to emerge from bankruptcy and remain in existence. We, as a people, have created a mechanism that allows a debtor to go through a process, wipe the slate clean and move on with a fresh start. The creditors get what the court gives them, and the debtor moves on. A Chapter 11 case can never achieve real fair.

The total amount paid out to creditors in a Chapter 11 case is predestined. It's the debtor's available assets less the costs of the bankruptcy and the assets the debtor needs to survive after emergence. It doesn't matter whether it is fair to the creditors, and, in fact, it never is, except, perhaps for some lucky secured creditors. It looks to me as though the BSA is offering an amount in that ballpark.

The LCs are essentially seeking the same fresh start as if they had gone through their own bankruptcies. At least, that is the benefit they want. In order to do that, they need to make substantial contributions. I don't think anyone can actually define what that means in all circumstances. The contributions don't need to be fair (by any definition of the word), just substantial.

In my opinion, an LC with live claims that would go through its own bankruptcy should it not get a discharge in this case really should be contributing its available assets less the assets it needs to survive. The cost of the fresh start should not be less than what the council would end up losing in its own bankruptcy. I wouldn't think anything that materially differs from that is a substantia contribution.

Councils that would not need to enter bankruptcy without a discharge ought to be contributing the fair value of the claims against them, taking into account the statute of limitations. Everything is frozen at this point in time, and no one can accurately predict future law changes. So, the best estimate of the fair value will have to suffice. If it turns out those councils do not have enough assets to make that payment, then they should be left in the same position they would be in if they went through their own Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In exchange for such substantial contributions, these councils should get discharged of their obligations.

Taking this view allows everyone a party to the plan to move on and allows the survivors to get paid promptly. That's bankruptcy fair. Of course, the victims still need to litigate with the insurance companies and the chartered organizations (except, perhaps the LDS Church), but their claims on the BSA and its affiliated councils are resolved.

I don't know whether any of the LC contributions meet the standards I described. So, I don't know whether I would regard them as bankruptcy fair. I'm not privy to how they were calculated, but I don't think the computations were designed to achieve this result.

Having explained how I view bankruptcy fair, we need to consider that the debtor is not an automobile manufacturer or a real estate company. This is the Boy Scouts of America. Its members promise to help other people at all times. It defines its members as those who are loyal, helpful and kind. So, we need to ask, if there is a council that is capable of paying the fair value of its claims and has excess assets remaining, should it practice what it preaches and contribute the excess to the survivors' trust fund? Should it do more than what is bankruptcy fair? I haven't found a point in the Scout Law that indicates it shouldn't.

It pains me to write this. As I've mentioned before in this forum, I grew up in a home riddled with abuse and neglect at the hands of my parents. Scouting was my safe place. It kept me sane and gave me purpose to persevere. I know it does that for others, which is why I have devoted so much of my time and energy to it as an adult. I can never repay my debt to Scouting. Consequently, I detest seeing Scouting torn apart by this. But if we're trying to teach our Scouts to do the right thing, the BSA needs to do the right thing for those whom it failed.

To any survivors reading this, please do not be offended by the cold and insensitive tone evident in parts of what I wrote. I simply believe that the bankruptcy process needs to be viewed for exactly what it is. Bankruptcy is about the money. It's about who gets how much and when. Bankruptcy fair is never truly fair to the creditors. I hope you can all find peace.

[PeterHopkins]

59 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

(What is "blood pudding?")

It looks like you want the answer to this question, so I'll oblige.

Blood pudding can describe a variety of sausages. Essentially, they contain animal blood, animal fat and a grain. Commonly, you'll find blood pudding made with pig's blood, pork fat and oats. In Ireland and the UK, this is often called black pudding. It is served as a breakfast food alongside your eggs. The sausage is sliced, and the resulting discs are cooked on a frying pan.

In the past, it was common to make blood pudding from beef or sheep. Instead of oats, barley is sometimes used.

Blood pudding is also sometimes prepared as a snack. The sausage is dipped in batter (similar to what would be used for a fish filet) and deep fried.

[BadChannel70]

As a survivor and one of many victims of the same abuser who carried out his deeds across multiple boy scout troops, what gives the BSA, my LC and CO any right to complain about anything. PERIOD!

 I did go to the police and my case was turned over to a unit that specializes in the exploitation of children. And when law enforcement came knocking at BSA's and my LC's doors, they were told nothing to see here detectives. Guess what...24 years later I learned through this bankruptcy, BSA and my LC banned my abuser from scouting 11 years prior to me reporting him to law enforcement. So my path to justice as well as other victims was purposely obstructed and as a result "our" abuser never faced one day in court or served one day in jail for his crimes. Nor will he since he has departed this life as we know it.

It disgusts me to read posts on this forum complaining why aren't abusers being held directly accountable. You can personally shake the hands of BSA and my LC for their purposeful grievous omission which allowed a legitimate pedophile, whose path of destruction was spread far and wide, to escape justice. 

Isn't it ironic, 24 years later I get to watch BSA, my LC and CO squabble and squawk about not getting a fair deal under this re-organization plan. I keep hearing phrases like, "we're going to run out of money," or "there will be never be enough money," or the line "what about the future of scouting."  Yet, aren't these the same sentiments the BSA and my LC used to justify their actions to not share adverse information with law enforcement about my abuser. WAKE UP! As far as I am concerned, BSA, my LC and CO are just as guilty as my abuser. They might not have physically penetrated me but they sure did pierce my soul with their lack of humanity and callousness. And now, they are trying to do it again...

Edited October 8, 2021 by BadChannel70

[ThenNow]

9 hours ago, PeterHopkins said:

I love blood pudding. I was born in Brooklyn and am a dual citizen of the United States and Ireland.

Confession: I’ve never had it. It just went with my “proof of the pudding” and dark prose of the moment. For those who didn’t know what it is, I knew it would be very dramatic. I’m thinking I will really like it because I love all manner of sausage. I’m Austrian and Irish so it’s in my blood.  

[CynicalScouter]

8 hours ago, BadChannel70 said:

It disgusts me to read posts on this forum complaining why aren't abusers being held directly accountable. 

This sentiment, which permeates many of the BSA defenders in this forum, disgusts me as well. As if a victims to justify or defend themselves or why they are seeking restitution from BSA?

The argument seems to be that victims are not "real" victims or really seeking "justice" unless they go after EVERYONE involved in the sexual abuse, starting with the perpetrators.

I am so happy that BSA-defenders get to sit in judgement of VICTIMS and decide whether the VICTIMS are doing enough.

You know what folks? You do NOT get to decide whether VICTIMS are or are not doing enough to YOUR satisfaction. They have every legal right to pursue BSA (and the LCs and COs) in civil court/bankruptcy court.

To sit there in smug condescension and say that you are not a "real" victim or that victims are only seeking "vengeance" unless they also try to seek out the perpetrators?

I got news for you: the perpetrators did not file for bankruptcy protection to protect their assets from child sexual abuse claims. BSA did.

The perpetrators did not spend millions on an ad campaign asking for victims to come forward. BSA did (as part of the bankruptcy claims bar date).

How DARE the BSA-defenders sit there and judge whether or not the VICTIMS have done enough. The VICTIMS have SUFFERED ENOUGH. As far as I am concerned, they do not have to justify a THING to you from a moral standpoint and from a LEGAL standpoint they will have to provide evidence of their claim, but no judge is going to say "You cannot recover damages from BSA because you did not find the perpetrator".

I'm going to give you all a little lesson in civil procedure: it is called an impleader. If BSA wants to make the claim that it is not liable for the abuse because the perpetrator was at least partially responsible, then BSA (let me repeat this) BSA can go file a third-party-impleader complaint against the perpetrator. The BSA can then get damages recovered/back from the third-party/abuser.

The classic example is Mary files a lawsuit against John for rear-ending her car at a stoplight. John then impleads Susan who rear-ended HIS car into Mary for his own damage (John's car) and the damage that happened to Mary's car. Susan is now co-defendant (in the case of Mary vs. John and Susan) and third party defendant (John v. Susan).

In the case of BSA: Scout is abused by Scoutmaster BUT the BSA and the LC are negligent for allowing the abuse to occur.

Scout sues BSA and LC (Scout vs. BSA and LC). Then BSA and the LC sue Scoutmaster for recovery (BSA and LC vs. Scoutmaster).

The case caption would read

Scout, Plaintiff vs.

BSA and LC, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintffs

vs. Scoutmaster, Third Party Defendant

If BSA-defenders absolutely insist that the victims are only seeking "vengeance" unless they also sue everyone else, keep in mind that at this point that shifts the legal burden. The burden NOW is on BSA if it fees that the "real defendant" should be the perpetrator to find that person and file a third-party-complaint or impleader and make the abuser a co-defendant.

In closing, BACK OFF THE VICTIMS and start asking BSA more questions.

Edited October 8, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[RememberSchiff]

No one here, except members who are claimants, have any part of deciding anything in this bankruptcy.

Let's drop the personal criticism of others who express in a scoutlike way their differing opinions.

Thanks,  RS

@gpurlee@T2Eagle

@Eagle1993 @MattR@elitts

Edited October 8, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[InquisitiveScouter]

14 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

No it is not. But the current scouts are absolutely part of the equation in terms of how the final settlements are made.

For me that is absolutely part of the equation. 

When I think on this, I can honestly say we don't really need our local council.  Everything they provide us could be done (and in most cases, actually already is being provided) through National functions (policy, materials (books and uniforms), standardized training) and local volunteers (local training courses and events).

Could anyone else here live without their local council?  With the technologies we have now, could they go away without a great deal of impact to Scouting?  I think so....and so, BSA toggle?

 

Edited October 8, 2021 by InquisitiveScouter

[CynicalScouter]

8 hours ago, BadChannel70 said:

Yet, aren't these the same sentiments the BSA and my LC used to justify their actions to not share adverse information with law enforcement about my abuser.

Yep. More concern about the program and less about the scouts/victims.

Look the other way.

Don't talk about it.

Maybe it will just go away.

Focus on the positive, don't worry about the victims.

Got to keep those campfires burning. No matter what.